Great Firewall Becomes Greater

Jay writes "This article on Yahoo! mentions China's new restrictions on websites as of September 1st. Apparently it's more advanced and doesn't censor the entire webpage, just portions. It also forwards requests for search engines, like google, to less effective search engines. They also mention that this might just be temporary during a Communist Party Congress. Anyone have a mirror?" A different AP article spins things slightly differently, emphasizing that Google is apparently no longer blocked in China and mentioning the selective blocking of web content only in passing.

Comments

Blocking part of a webpage

[poincaraux]

Apparently it's more advanced and doesn't censor the entire webpage, just portions.

Actually, the Yahoo article says that it blocks portions of websites rather than whole websites. Blocking parts of individual webpages would be a bit tougher :).

Re:This won't last.

[doublem]

I think it's only a matter of time before the people of China put an end to the censorship.

Yep, and it's only a matter of time before they have a nice republic set up too. This communism thing will never last.

It's not the lack of freedom that will change things, but block a man's google.com and you're begging for revolution!

censorship is like the world's funniest joke

[rjnagle]

Sites that link to controversial Chinese sites. don't necessarily promote these idealogies; they are merely acknowledging their controversial nature. It reminds me a little of the Monty Python sketch about the world's funniest joke , and anyone who heard or viewed the joke would die of laughter. The premise of censorship is that offensive content contaminates the hearts and minds of people. But you can only have censorship if someone can judge content without himself being contaminated. This contradicts the premise of censorship, which alleges that these contaminating powers exist inherently in the offensive material. On the other hand, if a censor can censor without being contaminated, that implies that offensive content does not automatically contaminate the mind or heart of a person. In that case, you would be admitting that censorship is unnecessary. That is the contradiction of censorship.

Test China's Firewall

I want the "The Great SMTP Wall" of China...

[toupsie]

Now, if only the Chinese Government would prevent e-mail from escaping their country, about 75% of the SPAM I receive every day would disapear.

And all thanks to American companies.

[fmaxwell]

This article is a sickening insight into how corporate greed in the U.S. made it possible for China to filter the network and even catch and arrest dissidents.

To force compliance with government objectives--to ensure that all pipes lead back to Rome--they needed the networking superpower, Cisco, to standardize the Chinese Internet and equip it with firewalls on a national scale. According to the Chinese engineer, Cisco came through, developing a router device, integrator, and firewall box specially designed for the government's telecom monopoly. At approximately $20,000 a box, China Telecom "bought many thousands" and IBM arranged for the "high-end" financing. Michael confirms: "Cisco made a killing. They are everywhere."

And Cisco is not the only U.S. company in Beijing's pocket. Let's not forget our friends at Yahoo!

Chinese xenophobia has led many other U.S. companies to play similar games, but Yahoo! was particularly eager to please. All Chinese chat rooms or discussion groups have a "big mama," a supervisor for a team of censors who wipe out politically incorrect comments in real time. Yahoo! handles things differently. If in the midst of a discussion you type, "We should have nationwide multiparty elections in China!!" no one else will react to your comment. How could they? It appears on your screen, but only you and Yahoo!'s big mama actually see your thought crime. After intercepting it and preventing its transmission, Mother Yahoo! then solicitously generates a friendly e-mail suggesting that you cool your rhetoric--censorship, but with a New Age nod to self-esteem.

This is a sad reminder of how large American companies have abandoned the idea of corporate ethics. The Chinese government is probably arresting, and maybe executing, pro-democracy advocates based on the work of companies like Cisco and Yahoo!. The U.S. government should prosecute the bastards at Cisco and Yahoo! responsible for providing these tools to the Chinese government.

Re:And all thanks to American companies.

[sielwolf]

The U.S. government should prosecute the bastards at Cisco and Yahoo! responsible for providing these tools to the Chinese government.

Jesus. I'm glad you would like to live in a world where you have to do what the government considers right in addition to not doing what it thinks is wrong.

So where is this government? The one that is purely good and righteous? And unfallable?

And how paranoid do you have to be? If you had supplied sandwiches to the vending companies that filled Enron's stomachs, should you too be arrested? Or should a housewife be arrested for enabling her husband's drinking? How far does the blame go? Those that you see as at fault?

In law the blame falls squarely on those who perpetrate the act. It is only rare laws that blame accessories and enablers. To institute a web of blame and guilt is foolish... unless you are trying to build some sort of fascist thought state.

Re:And all thanks to American companies.

[fmaxwell]

Corporations, OTOH, are not here to act as an ethical mouthpiece. They are here to employ citizens, make money, and follow the government's rules.

Your arguments are just a thinly veiled excuse for why corporations should feel free to do anything they like to make a buck. Don't think about what you are doing. If it's not explicitly illegal, just do it.

Ethics is (surprise) subjective.

Ethics is not nearly so subjective as you claim. If it was, colleges could not teach courses in "business ethics." The courses would all be over in one day with the summary "do whatever you can to make money because ethics is subjective."

I don't need my government to tell me that it is morally wrong to help foreign governments track down, arrest, and kill people for expressing their beliefs. I have a moral compass. I know right from wrong. So do the people running Cisco and Yahoo!. They simply choose to let their corporate greed outweigh their sense of decency.

If the Krupp offices in the US started going out and executing Jews in America during 1939 they couldn't just say "Hey, we do this in Germany all the time!"

By your "logic", Krupp in Germany did nothing wrong when they used Jews as slave labor, starving them and working them to exhaustion, and finally sending them off to be killed in the gas chambers when they could work no longer. After all, this was legal and "ethics is (surprise) subjective." Krupp certainly followed your definition of what a business should do: "They are here to employ citizens, make money, and follow the government's rules."

What's it like going through life with no sense of right or wrong?

Re:How to bypass the Great Firewall

[mosch]

I love zombocom!

Advanced

[t_allardyce]

You all might think that china is far behind civilization with their censorship of the internet/free speech, but in fact you couldn't be further from the truth. They are actually years ahead of us all!

Just remember, in a few years time when DRM is mandatory and free speech is crippled by 'national security' and the need for everyone to be protected from alternative ideas, china will be leading the way in firewalls, and filters, and they'll be teaching _Cisco_ how to do it :)

Quick, Mr Bush!

[nagora]

Over there, look: commies abusing human rights, they've got weapons of mass destruction, they've invaded their peaceful neighbour, Tibet, and they're in breach of UN resolutions. I guess we're going to have to send the troops in and kick their ass!

What's that you say, Mr Bush? No, I don't think Tibet has any oil. Why do you ask?

Hello? Hello? Mr Bush?

TWW